Re: HEADSUP: /etc/malloc.conf format change

2012-04-26 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:43:59AM -0700, Jason Evans wrote: On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: So you removed _malloc_options that was part of the documented programming API, while some software made use of it. [...] Please explore the possibility to add backwards

[RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain

2012-04-26 Thread Konstantin Belousov
I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told that original reasoning for static linking was the fear of loosing the ability to recompile if some problem appears with rtld and any required dynamic library. Apparently, current dependencies are much more spread, e.g. /bin/sh

Re: segfault in vfscanf(3): clang and __restrict usage

2012-04-26 Thread Jean-Sébastien Pédron
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 25.04.2012 21:40, Dimitry Andric wrote: I think the easiest solution for now is to #undef __restrict at the top of both lib/libc/stdio/vfscanf.c and lib/libc/stdio/vfwscanf.c, then recompile and reinstall libc. I attached a patch that removes

Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain

2012-04-26 Thread Bob Bishop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:35, Konstantin Belousov wrote: I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told that original reasoning for static linking was the fear of loosing the ability to recompile if some problem appears with

Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain

2012-04-26 Thread John Baldwin
On Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:38:03 am Bob Bishop wrote: Hi, On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:35, Konstantin Belousov wrote: I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told that original reasoning for static linking was the fear of loosing the ability to recompile if some

Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain

2012-04-26 Thread David Chisnall
On 26 Apr 2012, at 12:38, Bob Bishop wrote: Hi, On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:35, Konstantin Belousov wrote: I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told that original reasoning for static linking was the fear of loosing the ability to recompile if some problem appears

Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain

2012-04-26 Thread Erik Cederstrand
Den 26/04/2012 kl. 11.35 skrev Konstantin Belousov: I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told that original reasoning for static linking was the fear of loosing the ability to recompile if some problem appears with rtld and any required dynamic library. Apparently,

Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain

2012-04-26 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 2012-04-26 13:53, David Chisnall wrote: ... I did some benchmarks a little while ago, and there was, I think, about a 5% slowdown on buildworld with a dynamically linked clang vs a statically linked one on x86-64. Ideally, I'd want the bootstrap compiler to be statically linked but the

no ptX device found

2012-04-26 Thread rmgls
Hi all, On current, till about 3 months, no pty device is created. i see only a pts[0] in dev. screen (4.0.1, not higher) does not find any pty device. How can i create at least one? my ttys seems to have no effect. I am pretty sure i miss somemthing. In another hand, i see nothing in the man

Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain

2012-04-26 Thread Chris Rees
Oops, just replied privately before: On Apr 26, 2012 12:39 PM, Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 26, 2012 10:36 AM, Konstantin Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote: I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told that original reasoning for static linking was

Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain

2012-04-26 Thread Diane Bruce
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 07:52:01AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: On Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:38:03 am Bob Bishop wrote: Hi, ... You could use /rescue/sh as your single-user shell. Of course, that would perhaps let you still be able to recompile things if you had a static toolchain. :)

Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain

2012-04-26 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:35:48PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told that original reasoning for static linking was the fear of loosing the ability to recompile if some problem appears with rtld and any required dynamic

Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain

2012-04-26 Thread Chris Rees
On Apr 26, 2012 2:42 PM, Ruslan Ermilov r...@freebsd.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:35:48PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: I think it is time to stop building the toolchain static. I was told that original reasoning for static linking was the fear of loosing the ability to

Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain

2012-04-26 Thread Matthew Seaman
On 26/04/2012 20:01, Chris Rees wrote: hydra# cd /usr/ports time make MAKE=~crees/bin/make-static index Generating INDEX-9 - please wait.. Done. 729.770u 120.841s 7:45.10 182.8%920+2676k 5251+116484io 7750pf+0w hydra# time make MAKE=~crees/bin/make-dynamic index Generating

Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain

2012-04-26 Thread Chris Rees
On 26 April 2012 20:15, Matthew Seaman m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk wrote: On 26/04/2012 20:01, Chris Rees wrote: hydra# cd /usr/ports time make MAKE=~crees/bin/make-static index Generating INDEX-9 - please wait.. Done. 729.770u 120.841s 7:45.10 182.8%        920+2676k 5251+116484io

Re: segfault in vfscanf(3): clang and __restrict usage

2012-04-26 Thread Boris Samorodov
26.04.2012 13:41, Jean-Sébastien Pédron пишет: Boris, could you please test it and tell me if cupsd works again for you too? You just need to rebuild/reinstall the libc, not cups. I've rebuild the world (because I had to use gcc-built world for obvious reason) and now smartd works (can't test

updating from r231158 to 234465: mounting from ufs:/dev/ad4s1a failed with error 19

2012-04-26 Thread Anton Shterenlikht
I was updating from r231158 to 234465 (amd64 laptop Compaq 6715s), and I think I must've messed someting up in the kernel config. Now I get build error, panic of a loader error, depending on which kernel I build. * If I build GENERIC, I